Professor Paine’s Rejoinder -- By: Frank Hugh Foster

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 058:232 (Oct 1901)
Article: Professor Paine’s Rejoinder
Author: Frank Hugh Foster

Professor Paine’s Rejoinder

Frank Hugh Foster

Berkeley, Cal.

In the course of an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April of the present year, the undersigned reviewed Professor 50:L. Paine’s book upon the “Evolution of Trinitarianism.” Professor Paine has made a reply in the Boston Transcript of July nth, a portion of which was reprinted in the Congregationalist of July 20th. With the merely personal part of that reply the public will not wish to be troubled. But the following points seem to demand notice from me: —

1. I am rebuked for “imputing the worst of motives,” because I said that Professor Paine’s criticism of the Fourth Gospel was a priori, having its origin in “rooted dislike “of the doctrines of the Gospel. I made the statement because Professor Paine had expressed his dislike in the most pointed terms, which expressions I quoted. If Professor Paine will now say (as he does not say in the Transcript) that he does not dislike the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, and will explain his expressions in a way to make it plain that I was wrong, I will gladly retract what I said.

2. Professor Paine objects to my quoting Harnack against him in the matter of Athanasius. He says that I “seek to give the impression that Harnack is at irreconcilable odds with” him; whereas Harnack agrees with him in his general view of Greek Trinitarianism, and in his view of the whole trend of the history.

Professor Paine makes a very great mistake when he supposes that I was trying to oppose the naked authority of a great name to him. I gave Harnacks reasons for the disagreement with Professor Paine, and it is Professor Harnack’s argumentation?, not his person, that has not left our professor “an historical leg to stand upon.” I expressly said that Harnack was the leader of the school of historical criticism to which Professor Paine belongs, by which I meant to say that there is general agreement between the two. But Professor Paine, I am now compelled to add, is not a very accurate student of Harnack. He errs in reference to him in the following points: —

(1) He says that Harnack and others “agree with him in holding that John the Apostle did not write the fourth gospel.” That is true in form; but the general implication of the paragraph is false. Professor Paine holds that the Gospel was written about the middle of the second century,and that the author is entirely unknown. Professor Harnack holds that

it was written before no, and perhaps as early as 80, and by a...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()